Dismissed¶14

Smt. Jyoti Singh v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026CRLR/3681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 125 Cr.P.C.; dismissal of application; criminal revision; Family Court Firozabad; Additional Principal Judge, Court no. 1; plea of unemployment; bank 'Statement of Account'; salary received from company; Paper Book pages 5 and 11; revision devoid of merits; liberty to seek further remedy. Useful for: criminal revision against dismissal of a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application where documentary evidence of income/salary was on record before the Family Court and was not rebutted.

What did the court decide?

Liberty left open to the revisionist to seek further remedy, if circumstances so warrant. ¶14

Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3681 of 2024

¶3

Smt. Jyoti Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Shiva Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A., Man Bahadur Singh, Shivendra Pratap Singh, Somendra Singh

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶9

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Court no. 1, Firozabad, by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶10

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for no reason and has further submitted that the revisionist was unemployed at the relevant point of time specifically, subsequent to his marriage with opposite party No. 2. The order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, failed to take into consideration the fact that the revisionist was unemployed.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has argued that substantial documentary evidence exists in this case, which has been submitted before the learned Family Court, as is evident from page Nos. 5 and 11 of the 'Paper Book'. As part of the said evidence, a 'Statement of Account' issued by the bank was placed on record. This argument, as well as the fact that salary is received from the company, cannot be refuted by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶12

CRLR No. 3681 of 2024

¶13

¶14